To the readers: We have left intact in the document below issues that were discussed by the Planning Commissioners during the September 18th and October 16th. The list represents conversations, emails, meetings that have taken place before and during the Open Houses in September. This will help the readers know that the progress being made by the Planning Commissioners on the code, the influence during the Open Houses, and the sentiments and reasonable arguments the community is setting forth to preserve and protect Harbor Springs. On behalf of We Love Harbor Springs, I delivered the 60 Issues/Questions to Bill Mulder and then earlier to Jeff Grimm. The questions and answers were in the October 21st Agenda Packet. Thank you, Karin Offield
Remember, it is the City Council that approves the Zoning Code and the Planning Commissioners that recommends the Zoning Code and the Planning Consultants that write the zoning Code.
SIXTY OPEN & ANSWERED QUESTIONS for PDF FOR DOWNLOAD/PRINT
10/21/25
Dear Planning Commission –
This memo is to follow up on the questions Karin Offield shared with us during our 10/16/25
meeting. We addressed a few questions real time but I thought it would be helpful for the planning
commission if I answered all that I could in writing. The challenge is that I can’t speak for the whole
planning commission so these are my own answers. Any mistakes of fact are also my own.
Bill Mulder
Housing, Density & Neighborhood Character
60 Open Zoning Issues to Ponder
Housing, Density & Neighborhood Character
1. Lot Sizes in AG Issue:
Why were the minimum lot sizes in the AG district reduced from 12,000 sq. ft. to 10,000
sq. ft.?
Point of View: The draft code proposes a smaller minimum lot size. The intent appears to be to
allow more flexibility and additional building sites, but does this reduce the average lot area
previously required?
Response: The current zoning code says in the AR zoning district that single family buildings
are subject to the setbacks, height, and lot coverage restrictions of the R1A district. Then it says
that the minimum lot area is 12,000 ft2 instead of 10,000 ft2 in the current R1A district. The
planning commission elected to standardize on 10,000 ft2 for both the new RA and R1A
districts. The minimum lot width remains 100’.
2. Lot Area in R-1B
Issue: The change in minimum lot area for R-1B is confusing. Why was this altered?
Point of View: The draft reduces lot size requirements without clear explanation. We are asking
for justification.
Response: The size and shape of existing lots in the current R1B and R1C are virtually
indistinguishable in the real world. This map shows a large section of the R1B and R1C existing
zoning districts. You can see that an artificial distinction never made sense. The combination of
1districts is consistent with the goal to simplify the zoning code and make it more usable for
residents.
3. R-1C Lot Sizes
Issue: The minimum lot size for R-1C has changed, but the draft does not clearly explain why or
how this benefits residents.
Point of View: The reduction seems intended to allow more buildable lots. Residents want
clarification on whether this aligns with neighborhood character goals.
Response: The lot size for the former R-1C zone did not decrease; rather the lot size increased
by 364 sq. ft. from 6,500 to 6,864 sq.ft. The minimum dimensional requirement for lot width
decreased by 5’ because many of the lots in R-1C (and even R-1B) have smaller widths than
65’, putting owners of smaller width lots at a disadvantage relative to neighbors. A zoning code
cannot include explanations or the rationale behind the many decisions involved. Decisions
about lot dimensions were based on the planning commission’s best judgement of benefit to
the community. On this topic, the decisions were consistent with the goal of providing more
options for property owners; specifically bringing more existing lots into conforming status.
4. ADU Size in R-1B
Issue:After combining R-B and C districts, the new R-1B has smaller lot sizes (around 6,864
sq. ft.). But the code doesn’t list the ADU size allowed. How do we know the footprint we’re
allowed to build if it can be 25 ft tall?
Point of View: The draft does not provide a clear standard. The omission makes it difficult for
property owners to plan. In the past, ADU size was tied to lot size or main dwelling size, but that
detail is missing here.
Response: The draft provides a clear standard for ADU maximum size. Section 7.2.1.B.3 (page
70) says that an accessory building cannot be more than 75% of its corresponding principal
building’s first floor footprint. If there are two accessory buildings on a lot, the total footprint of
all accessory buildings shall not exceed 75%. Specific to ADUs, the zoning code sets a
minimum size of an ADU at 350 ft2 See page 70, section 7.2.2.B.5.
5. ADU Size in R-1E
Issue: What size ADU is allowed in the R-1E district? The old code (section 7.2.2.B.3) set the
size at 75%, but that section is missing in the new draft.
Point of View: The 75% limit was removed in the draft. Without it, the maximum size of ADUs in
R-1E is unclear.
Response: The 75% limit was not removed in the draft. The restrictions described above are in
Section 7 – Supplemental Standard which apply in all zoning districts.
6. ADU Minimum Size
Issue: Why does the draft code leave out a minimum floor area for ADUs in some districts?
Point of View: The draft omits a specific minimum in some districts, which means ADUs could
potentially be smaller than in the past. This may be an oversight or a policy choice to allow
more flexibility.
Response: The draft code does not leave out the minimum floor area for ADUs in some
districts. The zoning code clearly sets a minimum size of an ADU at 350 ft2
. See page 70,
section 7.2.2.B.5. It applies in all zoning districts.
7. ADUs and Enlarged Homes
Issue: The draft allows ADUs to be attached in basements, upper floors, or additions. Does this
mean the main home can keep expanding, effectively becoming much larger than the original
footprint?
Point of View: As written, yes. This could significantly increase home sizes. Clarification is
needed to prevent unintended overbuilding.
Response: All homes in all districts are subject to maximum lot coverage restrictions. They
range from 25% – 40% in residential zoning districts and are shown clearly in Article 3 for each
district. Those restrictions apply when a home is originally built and if it is reconfigured later.
38. ADUs in Duplexes
Issue: Are ADUs allowed in duplex districts? If so, how does ownership of two titles/deeds
work? Would one ADU per duplex make it a triplex if built upstairs?
Point of View: The draft is unclear. Duplex ownership complicates ADU allowances. Residents
want the city to clarify title handling and limits.
Response: ADUs would be allowed (by special land use) in the R-2 and RM zoning districts. The
zoning code does not specify how property owners should title their property (this is the case
for all types of property; not just ADUs). It is the owner’s business.
9. ADUs and Utilities
Issue: If ADUs are allowed on every residential lot, potentially doubling the number of houses
in town, why hasn’t there been a review of utilities (water, sewer, electric)?
Point of View: No utility impact study has been presented alongside the draft. Residents
should ask whether the City has evaluated infrastructure capacity before expanding ADU
allowances.
Response: ADU allowances are not being expanded; they are being restricted. ADUs in the R1A
and R1E districts will now require special land use approval rather than be by right. For
reference, there is an average of 1.5 ADUs built per year. The utility load from 1.5 additional
ADUs per year is miniscule. Additionally, the city DPW confirmed sufficient utility capacity for
homes to be built on all vacant property in the city at the existing average density. Also, there is
no sanitary sewer service west of Ann St.
10. Utility Lines for ADUs
Issue: Can ADUs have separate electric, gas, and sewer lines so utilities are not co-mingled
with the primary home?
Point of View: The draft does not clearly require or prohibit separate utility connections. This
needs clarification.
Response: An ADU may share utility connections with the primary residential building on the
property or may have its own connections, or may have a mix of connections. The property
owner has authority to decide what approach works best for them. This is consistent with the
goals of reducing bureaucratic processes and providing more options for property owners.
11. Renting of ADUs
Issue: Can ADUs be rented? This was not clearly discussed.
Point of View: The draft is unclear. Renting rules need to be spelled out.
Response: ADUs may be rented long-term. This was clearly discussed when short-term rentals
of ADUs were specifically prohibited. There are no “renting rules” for long-term rentals of
homes or ADUs. That is the owner’s business.
12. ADUs and Business Use
Issue: The draft says ADUs cannot be used for business or occupation, but the use tables
show allowances. Which is correct?
Point of View: The code is inconsistent. This should be clarified to avoid confusion.
Response: Section 7.2.11.1 says “The occupation must be carried out wholly within the
principal building”.
13. Short-Term Rentals in ADUs
Issue: If ADUs are allowed everywhere, are they also allowed to be used for short-term rentals?
Point of View: The draft does not clearly separate ADUs from short-term rental rules. This
could double the number of rental units in neighborhoods.
Response: Section 7.2.2.B.5 clearly says “An ADU shall not be used as a Short-Term rental.
14. Co-Living in Every District
Issue: Does the draft allow co-living arrangements in every residential district? How does this
fit with the character of single-family neighborhoods?
Point of View: The draft expands co-living into all districts. This raises concerns about density
and neighborhood compatibility. Residents should ask for the rationale behind this change.
Explain commercial co-living vs roommates.
Response: Co-living was removed completely from the draft code at the 10/16/25 meeting.
15. Employee Dormitories & Parking
Issue: If two lots are purchased uptown for employee dormitories: Do the two co-living homes
need to be 1,400 ft apart (about 5 blocks)? If not, can parking for both be combined? If
employees have partners living with them, does that change occupancy? How is parking for
12+ cars handled?
Point of View: The draft allows dormitory spacing of 1,400 ft between residences that allow co-
living. Parking requirements are based on the number of residents, but the code does not
clearly address co-mingled parking or occupancy limits if non-employees also reside there.
This is a policy question for the Commission to clarify.
Response: Co-living was removed completely from the draft code at the 10/16/25 meeting.
16. Co-Living and Cluster Housing
Issue: Co-living and Cluster Housing are mentioned in Article 3 but not fully discussed with the
public. Can this be addressed now?
Point of View: These housing types may not be completely new to Harbor Springs but need
open discussion. Residents want to know where they apply and how they affect density.
Response: Co-living was removed completely from the draft code at the 10/16/25 meeting.
Cluster Zoning (now called “Open Space Preservation) is detailed in Section 10.5 which says
that “no increase in density of use of a site is permitted”.
17. Cluster Housing Revisions
Issue: In January, Cluster Housing was removed, then placed in overlays, and now only
appears in the glossary with a lengthy definition. Where can I find it now? Can you explain it to
us?
Point of View: Cluster Housing has shifted throughout the drafts. The current placement
leaves its rules unclear.
Response: Open Space Preservation is fully detailed in Section 10.5. It has been discussed in
detail at multiple PC meetings and our fall open house meetings.
18. Cluster Housing & Utilities
Issue: How does Cluster Housing work in practice? Can ADUs within clusters have separate
utility lines from the main home?
Point of View: The draft does not explain. Questions remain on how utilities and density will be
managed.
Response: Cluster Zoning requires special land use approval. In that process, the planning
commission reviews all aspects of an application and site plan including utilities if applicable.
No increase in density is permitted. This is clearly stated in the draft zoning code – Section
10.5.
619. R-1A Neighborhood Character
Issue: R-1A is supposed to focus on “maintaining existing character.” How does adding co-
living, Cluster Housing, or Planned Developments fit with that stated goal?
Point of View: The draft’s expanded uses appear inconsistent with the neighborhood’s stated
purpose. Clarification is needed on how these changes align with the city’s own objectives.
Response: Co-living was removed completely from the draft code at the 10/16/25 meeting.
Planned Development will not be permitted in R1A (10/16/25 meeting). Open Space
Preservation remains an option in R1A and requires special land use approval. During that
process the PC and neighborhood can provide input about whether a request is a good fit for a
particular area.
20. Changing Neighborhood Character
Issue: How do these zoning changes affect the traditional character of neighborhoods?
Point of View: The draft expands density and uses in ways that may not align with stated goals
of preservation.
Response: I do not understand this question since the draft zoning code has very similar
minimum lot dimensions as the current zoning code. There is no discernable change in density
between current and proposed.
21. Multi-Family in RM Districts
Issue: Does the draft expand the number of multi-family units allowed in the RM district, and if
so, by how much?
Point of View: The density provisions appear broader, but the actual limits are not spelled out.
This should be clarified before approval.
Response: There is no change.
Building Form, Height & Setbacks
22. Building Heights. To Be continued
Issue: What are the new height limits for buildings? Do elevators, tanks, fans, fire walls,
antennas or parapet walls count toward the height? Where is this explained in the draft code?
Point of View: Height definitions vary across sections of the draft. Certain rooftop features may
7be exempted, while others count toward total height. Residents should review the definitions
and height table in the zoning draft to confirm where exceptions apply. The Planning
Commissioners should discuss this with the community.
Response: Disagree. Section 5.23, Permitted Height Exceptions is clear and applies in all
districts. The maximum building height for each zoning district is shown in the tables in Section
3.4.X.
23. Community District Building Heights
Issue: Is it true that buildings in the Community District can be up to 40-ft high? Why is that
allowed, and why isn’t there a maximum floor area listed?
Point of View: Yes, the draft sets a 40-ft maximum height. The rationale appears to be to allow
larger mixed-use or commercial buildings. Floor area maximums are not listed, leaving total
building size open-ended. Up to subjective review?
Response: The PC elected to continue the same dimensions for the Community district as
exist in the current zoning code. I do not recall any concerns about the existing standards.
24. Height in CBD (35 ft vs. 38.6 ft)
Issue: The CBD chart shows 35 ft plus 42 inches, equaling 38.6 ft. Is the true maximum 35 ft or
38.6 ft?
Point of View: The draft’s height table is inconsistent. Clearer rules are needed.
Response: Disagree. The 35’ maximum height is clearly described in section 3.4.10. as is the
42” mechanical equipment specification and setback requirements.
25. Roof Decks, Elevators, Rooftops
Issue: How are features like roof decks, parapets, or elevators measured in building height?
Point of View: The draft is unclear. Without clarification, these features may exceed limits.
Response: Disagree. Section 5.23, Permitted Height Exceptions wording is clear and applies in
all districts.
26. Heights in B-2 District
Issue: Is the General Business B-2 district limited to 30 ft? Do decks and rooftops count?
Point of View: The draft mentions 30 ft but does not explain what is included. This requires
clarification.
8Response: Section 3.4.12 shows that the maximum height is 35’. Section 5.23, Permitted
Height Exceptions is clear and applies in all districts.
27. Height Definitions (Draft 8.7.25)
Issue: Section 3.3.4.b defines height in ways that are confusing—existing, finished, average,
absolute. Which is correct?
Point of View: The draft provides multiple definitions throughout the draft but for me without
clarity. Can you explain?
Response: Article 14 – Definitions and Article 15 – Illustrations describe these regulations.
28. Setback Reductions
Issue: Can the Planning Commission change or reduce setbacks in the RM district? Was this
power allowed in the old code?
Point of View: The old code included limited circumstances where setbacks could be reduced.
The new draft appears to expand the Commission’s discretion, but residents should request
clarification on the scope of that authority.
Response: The PC is charged with setting all the specifications in the zoning code other than
those that might be governed by other laws. There is nothing in the draft zoning code which
expands the PC’s discretion.
29. Setback Differences Between Districts
Issue: Why do setback rules vary so much between districts, even when lots are similar sizes?
Point of View: The draft applies different standards inconsistently or on purpose?
Response: Disagree that setback rules vary so much between districts. Lot minimums
dimensions vary between districts. Setback requirements are proportional to lot minimum
dimensional requirements i.e., bigger lots will have greater setbacks generally. Decisions
about dimensional requirements were based on the current zoning code, known issues that
have affected property owners, and ideas for improvement.
30. RA District Floor Area Rules
Issue: Article 7 rules on floor area in the RA district are confusing. Why are they so strict, and
why must accessory buildings resemble the principal building even when unrelated?
9Point of View: The draft applies uniform standards, but this may over-regulate accessory
structures. Residents should ask why flexibility is not allowed.
Response: Dimensional requirements are clear and consistent in their application across
zoning districts. Virtually all input the PC received from community members is that accessory
buildings should reflect the aesthetics of the principal building.
Land Use & Commercial Activity
31. Living Space Above Garage
Issue: If I build a living space above my garage to use as a home office, is that allowed? The
draft (p. 12 of 161) says accessory buildings can’t be used for any business or occupation.
What does this mean in practice?
Point of View: The language is restrictive. As written, an accessory structure cannot be used
for commercial or occupational purposes, even if the activity is a home-based business.
Clarification is needed from the Planning Commission.
Response: A property owner may use a home office in any structure but may only operate a
home occupation (see Section 7.2.11) in the principal building. The language is intended to be
restrictive.
32. Home Occupations and Commercial Use
Issue: Does allowing home occupations mean commercial uses are now permitted in
residential districts? Are signs allowed?
Point of View: The draft blurs the line. Short-term rentals and multiple employees housing
resemble commercial activity. So how will limits be enforced?
Response: Home Occupations are allowed under the current zoning code and in the draft
updated zoning code. Signs are restricted.
33. Planned Developments and Retail
Issue: Planned Developments can include retail. If allowed in residential districts, could this
turn much of town into a commercial hub?
Point of View: Yes, PDs allow discretionary uses. This could expand commercial areas beyond
current districts.
10Response: The Planned Development language would allow limited commercial uses that are
integral to the residential uses in the PD. At the 10/16/25 meeting, we limited PD applicability to
a handful of districts and put a percentage limit on commercial floor space and usage types
within a PD in a residential district.
34. Florist Shop Size Restriction
Issue: Why does the draft limit florist shops to 1,000 sq. ft. or less?
Point of View: The restriction seems arbitrary. It may be intended to limit scale, but it could
also discourage viable businesses. The reasoning should be explained.
Response: This restriction only applies to a florist shop in the RA district. This is a carryover
from the current zoning code. I believe that the historic intent was to prevent a very large retail
business from operating in this district.
35. Lodging in B-1
Issue: Did lodging get added to the B-1 district? What does this mean for the surrounding area?
Point of View: If lodging is allowed, it could change the character of B-1. Residents should ask
for clear restrictions.
Response: Lodging Establishments would be permitted in the B-1 district by special land use.
That process considers input from the neighborhood.
36. Laundromats on Community Property
Issue: Why can’t a laundromat be built on community property?
Point of View: The draft excludes it without explanation. This restriction may be arbitrary?
Response: Cannot answer this opinion question but laundromats are not allowed in this
district under the existing zoning code.
37. Farm Stores in R-Ag
Issue: Why is a farm store listed as a Special Land Use (SLU) in R-Ag? The Right to Farm Act
allows them by right.
Point of View: The draft may conflict with state law. Farm-related uses should align with
existing rights.
11Response: The Right to Farm Act applies to every property in every zoning district in the state. If
a commercial farm operator in Harbor Springs would like to invoke those rights, they are free to
do so and to configure their property in a way that is consistent with the act.
38. Farmstand Setbacks
Issue: Why must a farm stand accessory building be set back 100 ft from the road?
Point of View: The rule may be intended to reduce roadside clutter, but it could make small
farm stands impractical.
Response: I can’t answer this opinion question but the farmstand setback is a carryover from
the current zoning code. Also see above response about the Right to Farm act.
39. Mobile Home Park District
Issue: What happened to the additional requirements for the Mobile Home Park (MHP) district
(sidewalks, lighting, carports, signage, skirting, tanks)? Are they still in place?
Point of View: The draft seems to omit them. Is the city involved in how MHP standards will be
governed?
Response: Many regulations are covered in the Michigan Mobile Home Commission Act. If a
local unit of government wants standards that exceed those in the act, then the local
ordinance needs to be approved by the Mobile Home Commission. Additionally, mobile
home parks have their own regulations and standards. I see no benefit to imposing
additional city regulations.
40. Religious Institutions in ROS
Issue: At one meeting, there was discussion of religious institutions in the ROS district. What
was decided?
Point of View: The draft has not clarified this. A final decision is still needed so I understand.
Response: The draft is completely clear on this. The regulated uses table shows that religious
institutions are permitted in the ROS district.
12Environment, Overlays & Public Lands
41. Overlay Districts and Environmental Protections
Issue: Overlays were not fully discussed for public review. Items like neon signage came up,
but wetlands and sand dunes were skipped. Why aren’t they included and protected?
Point of View: The draft overlays focus on signs and general standards. Wetlands and dunes
are not explicitly covered, leaving gaps in environmental protections.
Response: A zoning overlay may or may not be the best way to accomplish what residents in a
particular neighborhood feel is beneficial. Residents could bring a specific proposal for a future
update of the zoning code. Additionally, they could explore imposing neighborhood – specific
rules under a homeowners’ association or condominium association.
42. Article 4 Overlay District
Issue: Article 4 Overlay was expected to be advertised and discussed to protect wetlands and
dunes and maybe more environmental concerns. Why hasn’t this happened?
Point of View: The draft does not fully develop overlay protections. Residents are asking for
stronger environmental overlays before adoption.
Response: Cannot answer this opinion question for the whole PC. Residents could bring a
specific proposal for a future update of the zoning code.
43. Overlay Additions Requested
Issue: We want overlays added for wetlands and dunes. This request has also been raised in
the Glenn Drive petition. Also that ‘new roads’ be curtailed.
Point of View: Overlays can add critical protections. The community has repeatedly requested
them, but they have not been added to the draft.
Response: Please see response to #41, above.
44. Waterfront Protections
Issue: The waterfront is considered a community resource. How will decisions ensure
protection against over-development while still allowing limited public, private, and business
uses?
Point of View: The draft permits a mix of uses. Residents want to know how the city will
balance development with long-term protection of the waterfront.
13Response: The existing and proposed zoning codes regulate public and private use of the
Waterfront district. I cannot answer about the writer’s perception of over development.
45. Conservancy Lands
Issue: Why don’t district boundaries include conservancy properties? Shouldn’t those lands
remain outside city zoning controls? Shouldn’t these lands be clearly shown on the City maps?
Point of View: Conservancy lands often follow separate rules, but the draft is unclear.
Clarification is needed on jurisdiction.
Response: The current and proposed zoning maps clearly show all properties within the City of
Harbor Springs. This includes conservancy properties as well as those owned by other public
and private entities. All properties are in a zoning district. Some properties may have
conservation easements or other restrictions which are not part of a zoning code. Ownership of
properties is not shown on a zoning map.
46. Waterfront ADUs
Issue: In the Waterfront District, can an ADU be as large as the principal building? Why would
that be allowed?
Point of View: The draft appears to allow this. It may encourage oversized ADUs in sensitive
areas.
Response: ADUs are not allowed in the Waterfront district today or in the proposed update.
See the permitted uses table in Article 3.
47. Community Parks Classification
Issue: Section 2.3.2 (page 5) leaves open questions about how community parks are classified
within districts.
Point of View: The draft is unclear. Parks may need their own district classification or a clearer
definition to ensure consistent protection.
Response: Parks were moved to the Community district. The proposed zoning map is clear on
this topic.
14Infrastructure, Schools & Traffic
48. Parking Requirements for ADUs
Issue: Are additional parking spaces required when an ADU is built?
Point of View: The draft mentions parking in some cases but not consistently. This could
create overflow parking problems.
Response: Section 7.2.2.B.8 – “Parking for the ADU shall be provided on the same property as
the principal residential structure and include one off street parking space per ADU”. This
applies to all newly built ADUs.
49. School District Impacts
Issue: Has anyone reviewed how doubling housing units through ADUs will affect local public
and private schools and class sizes?
Point of View: No study has been presented. The impact on school capacity is an open
question.
Response: This question is based on a severely flawed assumption (my opinion). We average
1.5 new ADUs per year. That rate is not expected to change significantly. Does the writer have
other data or assumptions to share with us? Further, the proposed ordinance as it relates to
allowing ADUs is more restrictive than the current code.
50. Traffic Impacts of Increased Density
Issue: Has there been a traffic study to evaluate how more ADUs, co-living, and cluster
housing will affect local streets?
Point of View: No traffic impact analysis has been included with the zoning draft. Residents
are requesting one.
Response: See above answer. Also, we have had cluster zoning in our zoning code for
decades.
51. Infrastructure Costs
Issue: Who pays for infrastructure upgrades if density increases — residents through higher
taxes, or developers through fees?
Point of View: The draft does not specify. This is a policy decision that should be addressed
before adoption.
15Response: In the case of a Planned Development, the following is specified in Section 10.2.6.C
“The PD option may be used only when the proposed land use will not materially add service
and facility loads beyond those considered in the City of Harbor Springs Master Plan, and other
public agency plans, unless the proponent can prove to the sole satisfaction of the City that
such added loads will be accommodated or mitigated by the proponent as part of the PD.”
Design Standards & Community Identity
52. CBD Design Standards
Issue: Why weren’t design standards for the Central Business District discussed? The idea of
using ‘cottage architecture’ as a standard vs. newer vertical styles (p. 30) never came before
the community. What makes the streets interesting is that they are not defined by the identical
setbacks, heights, or facades, there is a natural rhythm and streetscape scale that has variety.
In the current zoning and proposed zoning codes is a certain rigidity about use and scale that
tends to create houses that are all exactly alike and that is not what a form based code tries to
create. We want to add new design standards.
Point of View: The draft leaves design standards vague. Residents should ask for clarity on
whether traditional forms will guide new development.
Response: The planning commission approved the CBD building design standards as they
appear in the draft figuring that they are a significant benefit to the community. If there are
additional ideas which could be standalone or part of a possible historic district, those could
be examined in the future.
53. Who Defines Harbor Springs’ Identity?
Issue: Is Beckett & Raeder “painting the picture” of Harbor Springs for us, rather than the
community defining it ourselves?
Point of View: Consultants often provide descriptive language, but the question is whether
their version reflects local values. Residents may wish to insist on language grounded in
community input.
Response: Community consensus defines and redefines our identity through the Master Plan
process. Further, the importance of community consensus is evidenced by the significant
16evolutionary changes to the proposed draft resulting from suggestions and concerns voiced by
all segments of the HS community.
54. Descriptive Language in the Code
Issue: In the last PC meeting, there was talk of removing the descriptive, “tour-guide” style
sections about town character. Should consultants be writing that narrative?
Point of View: Removing narrative language may strip context from the code. The community
must decide whether to keep, revise, or replace these sections with locally written
descriptions.
Response: The PC settled on the language which can be seen in the 10/16/25 draft. It was a PC
member who suggested removing the language referred to in this question – not our planning
consultant.
Process, Transparency & Baseline Code
55. Repealed Code vs. 2005 Code
Issue: At meetings, most changes have been framed using the repealed code as the baseline.
Only one commissioner spoke up for the 2005 code. Does this approach make sense?
Point of View: Using the repealed code as a starting point shapes the entire draft. Some
residents argue that the 2005 code, which voters upheld, should be the reference point.
Response: Through multiple public meetings; open houses, town hall meetings, PC meetings
there was widespread agreement from the community that the current format is so flawed and
antiquated that it did not make sense to work from that. The PC formally decided early in the
year to update our zoning code for 2025 using the superior format. After that decision, we
examined every word to develop the proposed zoning code update.
56. Use of Repealed Code
Issue: The draft appears to be built on the repealed Beckett & Raeder Code #439, even though
it was rejected by voters. Why was this used as a foundation?
Point of View: Much of the language mirrors the repealed code. The Planning Commission
should explain why it served as the starting point despite public rejection.
Response: See above answer. Also, it is inaccurate to call it Beckett & Raeder’s Code #439; it
was the work of our planning commission and city council.
1757. Regulated Uses Table Symbols
Issue: In the Regulated Uses Table, supplemental asterisks are missing. What do they mean,
and why are they not shown?
Point of View: Asterisks usually refer to footnotes or conditions. Without them, it is unclear
whether restrictions apply. This appears to be either an omission or a formatting error.
Response: Asterisks do appear in the Regulated Uses Table on pages 7-9. See Accessory
Dwelling Units, Bed and Breakfast, Multi-Family and Home Occupations.
58. Transparency of Changes
Issue: Why hasn’t the Planning Commission provided a side-by-side or redline comparison
between the old code and the new draft?
Point of View: Without a comparison, residents must parse long documents on their own. A
redline version would improve transparency.
Response: The PC has been working with redline versions of the old (repealed) zoning code
since the beginning of the year as the basis for our decisions. Redlined versions of each article
were included in planning commission meeting packages for all to work from.
59. Issue: If a subject is not found in the proposed code, does that mean it’s allowed everywhere?
It’s hard to grasp these conditions.
Point of View: There was a lot of discussion that if not put somewhere, a use could be put
anywhere.
Response: If a “use” is not specified or defined in a zoning code, it is not allowed anywhere.
60. Public Participation
Issue: How will the community’s comments from open houses and hearings be recorded,
tracked, and addressed before final adoption?
Point of View: No clear feedback loop has been presented. Residents are asking for a process
to ensure input is documented and acted on.
Response: Most PC members attended at least one fall open house session. The 4 main
themes from the open houses were presented to the planning commission at the 9/18/25
meeting. The remaining three were reassessed and modified at the 10/16/25 meeting.
To add, correct or give answers, please contact us at weloveharborsprings@gmail.com